Versions of Incomensurability

8/6/2019 Versions of Incomensurability

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/versions-of-incomensurability 1/7

University of Oklahoma

Versions of IncommensurabilityAuthor(s): Natalie MelasSource: World Literature Today, Vol. 69, No. 2, Comparative Literature: States of the Art(Spring, 1995), pp. 275-280Published by: University of OklahomaStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40151136

Accessed: 23/12/2009 01:32

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=univokla.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

University of Oklahoma is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to World

Literature Today.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/40151136?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=univokla

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=univokla

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/stable/40151136?origin=JSTOR-pdf



Versions f Incommensurability

By NATALIE MELAS Comparison as it hascome down to us fromthe "comparativemeth-

od"developedacrossso many emergent ieldsin thenineteenthcentury s a highlynormativeprocedure.An ideal or typeis positeda priorior derivedempir-ically from the similarities between various ele-

ments; this type in turn becomes the standardorcriterionaccording o whichjudgmentsof value, of

deviation, of inclusion or exclusion are proposed.Comparative literature owes its name to thismethodborrowed romthe natural ciences,andin-

deed, some of its earlyacademicpractitionersbe-lieved thattheycould derivewith scientificrigorthe

general aws and the universalhistoryof world liter-atureof which idealistscouldonlydream.2

I beginwith this briefevocation of the compara-tive method because though it may be largelyfor-

gottenin the humanities, t has, for lackof anysus-tained theoretical reflection on the subject of

comparison,never been replaced. Consequently,

the comparisonof the culturalexpressionsof differ-ent languages,nations,peoplesin practiceseemsal-

ways constrainedby an invisible binary bind inwhichcomparisonmust end eitherby accentuatingdifferencesorby subsuming hem under some over-

archingunity.3 n the firstcase, which might more

preciselybe called"contrastiveiterature,"mphasisfalls on the differential,on the irreducibleparticu-larityof the work n questionor the nationalcharac-ter it reflects.In the secondcase similaritys under-lined and the emphasisfalls on the unification ofdiverse phenomena into general laws or evendemonstrationsof the unity of "human" nature.4Both modes of comparisondepend on an initial

generalizationn the form of a criterionor

norm,deployedeitherto differentiate r to generalize.Asone criticputs it, "comparisons doubly generaliz-ing: at its point of departureand its point of ar-

. . . lespoetiquesmultiplieesdu monde ne se proposent

qu'd ceux-ld seuls qui tentent de les ramasserdans desequivalencesqui n'unifientpas.. . . the multiplepoetics of the worldpresentthemselvesto those alone who attemptto gatherthem into equiva-lences hat do not unify.1

Edouard Glissant, Le discours ntillais

rival."5At the current iterarycriticalmoment,heiron the one hand to the critique rom variousanglesof the unityof the literarywork and certainlyof theunity of nationalcharacter,and on the other handto the critique,particularlyroma postcolonialper-spective,of pretensions o the generaloreven to theuniversal,he aims of the comparativemethod n lit-

eratureor culture seem more than suspect; theyseem downrightobsolete.6 This obsolescence is asymptom of the historicaldeterminationsof criti-cism;7 t suggeststoo that reflection on the unex-

plored possibilitiesof comparative tructuresmightalso involvehistoricizing ndcontextualizingariousmodes of comparison.

This essay s a briefexcursus nto a mode of com-

parisonproducedby a particularlyolonialdisposi-tion of poweras describedby FrantzFanonin BlackSkin, WhiteMasks.I will argue hat this text offersadescriptionof the "equivalenceshat do not unify"which Glissant challenges the critic (in the last

pages of his magisterialanalysisof the postcolonialAntilles,Le discoursntillais,

quotedhere in the

epi-graph)to seek as a mode forgathering ogether hemultiplepoetics of the world. Attemptingto con-ceive of equivalences hat do not unify points the

wayto a practiceof comparisonhatmightnot syn-thesize similaritiesnto a norm.My workinghypoth-esis is that colonialcomparison onflates wo modesof comparison, qualitativeand quantitative,thus

producinga version of incommensurabilitywhichdiffersfrom our received definition of the incom-mensurableas "thatwhich cannot be measuredbycomparisonfor lack of a common measure,"sug-gestinginstead a definitionalong the lines of "thatcomparison which cannot measure because its

equivalencesdo not unify."

Incommensurabilitys the negation of commongroundand thereforeof the very possibilityof com-

parativerelation s often evoked as a remedyto theexcesses of normative or assimilatorycomparison.Rejecting he claim of the Western scientificmodeof knowledge o judge by criteria nternal o its ownrules non-Westernnarrativemodes of knowledge acrucialbasis forthe legitimationof Western"cultur-

Natalie Melas teachesComparative iterature t CornellUni-

versity.She is workingon a book about comparisonand the

problemof the multicultural.



276 WORLDLITERATURE ODAY

al imperialism") Jean-FrancoisLyotard, for in-stance,arguesthat traditional ultures and moderncultures are incommensurable,each governed by"rules[that] are specificto each particularkind of

knowledge."8He concludes that it is therefore"im-

possible .. to judgethe existenceorvalidityof nar-rative knowledgeon the basis of scientific knowl-

edge and vice versa; the relevant criteria aredifferent.All we can do is gaze in wonderment atthe diversityof discursivespecies."9Attractiveasthisvision of radicallydiscreteand autonomoushet-

erogeneitymay be as palliative o the assimilatoryexcesses of comparison,t exposesseveralproblems.For one thing,comparisons not so much overcomeas it is inverted:a judgmentof incommensurabilityis still one based on comparisonand thereforeon acriterion,only its result s the determination f con-trast rather than similarity, absolute differencerather than unity. Since comparison determines

bothwhat is inside andwhat is outside its compass,it is hard to distinguish, structurallyat least, be-tween whatis abovecompare,what is beneath com-pare,or what is somewherebeyondor outside com-

pare. To posit discoursesor cultures as radicallyseparateentitiesthat do not conform to the samelawsdoes not per se protectthem from a judgmentof valueor the deploymentof a norm,since incom-

parabilitycan be a mark of superioror inferiorworth. When LordMacauley, or instance,declaresin a famousminute that he has "certainly ever metwith any Orientalistwho venturedto maintainthatthe Arabicand Sanscrit(sic)poetrycould be com-pared to that of the great Europeannations,"hemeans for that incommensurabilityo indicate nfe-

rior"worth."10 hatever unctionaldifferencemightobtainbetween, let us say, Macauley's ncompara-bilityas "thatwhich cannotbe compared" ndLyo-tard's ncommensurabilitys "thatwhich cannot bemeasured y comparison," he point remains thatboth rely on comparison o determine what is be-yondcompare.

To saythat a judgmentof incommensurabilitysitself a judgmentarrivedat through comparison salso to indicatethatsuch a judgmentreservesa po-sition or at least a point of view for the comparatistoutside the comparison. Lyotard's very phrase,"gazein wondermentat the diversityof discursivespecies,"suggeststhe possibilityof a distanced andpanoramic

perspectiveon a vast

arrayof

heteroge-neous systems, a position from which, one mightadd, the observercould just as easily gaze acquisi-tively as in wonderment.The equivalenceor com-mon ground withdrawn from the objects undercomparison eappearsn theverystance of the com-paratist:he objectshavenothing n commonbuthisunifiedvision.What remainsunexamined s the lo-cation from which the comparisonis offered. AsBruceRobbinspointsout regardinghe disinterest-

ed purviewof the disengagedcosmopolitan,such a

privilegedand exteriorapprehensionendows cul-tures with the autonomyof estheticobjects,makingthem available n all their enclosed diversity o thecollector'sgaze.11n all fairness o Lyotard, shouldmake clear first that the references o incommensu-rabilityI have pluckedfrom The Postmodern ondi-tion areperipheralo the mainline of his argument,and secondthat,thoughI have assimilatedhis com-ments to a culturalrelativistposition that defendsthe integrityof separatecultures,his interest s notso much in heterogeneous ntitiesas it is in hetero-

geneous discourses or language games. All the

same, despiteits emphasison modes of knowledge,his exampleof incommensurabilityffers a pano-ramic perspectiveon a heterogeneitymade up of

separate,autonomousentities.

Lyotard'sprimemotive in evoking ncommensu-

rabilityseems to be to banish similarityaltogether,

as thoughto punishexcessivehomogeneitywith itsopposite.But the similarity t issue in the wordis ofa very particularkind. Incommensurability,erivingfrom the Latinincommensurabilis,eaning"lackof acommon measure"and rendered n dictionarydefi-nitions as "thatwhichcannotbe measuredby com-

parison," oregroundsboth the act of measurementand this measurement'sdependenceon a common

denominator;ncommensurability,n other words,inscribes a conjunction between similarity andvalue.The similarity t issue here is one thathas al-

readybeen instrumentalized s a norm;what twoentities have in common can be used to measurethem againsteach other or in a largerframework.To try and imaginea comparisonor a settinginto

relation that is not normativeor assimilatory,onewould perhapsfirst want to look for a way of sun-

deringthe perceptionof similarityrom the consoli-dation of a norm. Classicalrhetoricmakes such adistinction n its separationof comparisonnto two

categories: imilitudo, ualitative omparison "ShallI compare hee to a summer'sday?"),andcompara-tio, quantitative omparison "Thouartmoreovelyand more emperate").12he conceit in these exam-

ples, the first two lines of Shakespeare'sonnet 18,is precisely o scramble he two rhetoricalmodes of

comparisonso that comparatios turned on simi-

litude, converting the similarity grounding the

metaphorical quivalencebetweenthe belovedanda summer

dayinto the common denominatorun-

derlyinga measurementby comparison.Comparatiocan only occur in isotopic context, determiningvalueaccording o rigidlydefinedrealms; t enforcesthe comparisonof appleswith apples and orangeswith oranges.Similitudo, n the contrary,dependson metaphor's transgressionof isotopic contextsand encourages he comparisonof appleswith ob-

jects much furtherafield than oranges.Comparatioenforcespreexistingsimilarities,whereassimilitudo



MELAS 277

posits new resemblances, tretching he limits of acode. To combinethem, as Shakespearedoes, vio-lates the groundrules of both comparisons:t is to

compareapplesto orangesand to measure accord-

ing to strict categoriesan equivalencewhose verypointis to transgresshose categories.Whilecompa-rators measureby comparison s clearlybound byhistorical,discursive,and institutional actors,sinceit determines he value and legitimacyof basic sys-tems of order,13imilitudo, n the contrary, launtsthe flexibilityof existingcategories, houghits intel-

ligibility oo depends n the finalanalysison culturalnorms.14 hus, though apparentlyn oppositiontoeachother,these two modes of deployingsimilarityarenot by any meansmutuallyexclusive. It is out-side the scope of my essayto explorethis complexissuein greatdetail.HereI wantmerely o mark hedifferencebetweensimilitudo ndcomparationd the

importanceof theircomplementarityn orderto at-

tend more carefully o their conflationin Fanon'sdescription f Antilleancomparison.The versionof incommensurabilityhichpositsa

radical separationbetween autonomous systemsseems problematicn a colonial context simplybe-cause colonialism s a complexof social, economic,and culturalpractices predicated preciselyon theeradicationof autonomousrealms.Subsumingthe

globe under its law, it sets all differences nto rela-tion withEuropeanmetropolitanpowersas the eco-nomic center and the culturalstandard.Here Lyo-tard's definitionof incommensurabilityn terms of

systemsor laws rather han objectstakes on a par-ticularresonance. n TheDifferende writesthat thecriterion or incommensurabilitys "theimpossibili-

ty of subjecting hem [phraseregimens]to a singlelaw (exceptby neutralizinghem)."15Colonialism sindeedthe impositionof a singlelaw, at least in thecultural realm, for the civilizing mission bringseverythingnto comparison;he world it imagines s

composed,if one may say so, only of apples.How-

ever, while this unlimitedcomparabilitydenies in-

commensurabilitys startingground,incommensu-

rability,I will argue,becomes a product f colonial

comparisons.Colonialismmay, to varyingdegrees,neutralize the differences that distinguishedcolo-nizedcultures,but a whole set of differential ffectstakes heirplace.

The demand colonialsocietymakes on the black

man, particularlyhe black man from the Antilles,where no original culture survived colonialism,Frantz Fanon asserts in Peau noire>masquesblancs, s

to "blanchir u disparaitre"whitenor disappear).16Heedingthe call of assimilation, he evolueendeav-ors to acquireFrench civilizationthrough educa-

tion, language,culture,behavior.From his17 tand-

point on the distant islands, he takes whiteness

figuratively s the sign for the most advancedstageof the civilizationwhose universal standard has

deemed his society inferior.Indeed, the civilizingmission, predicatedon an evolutionaryteleologythathas determinedwhiteness he cultural tandard,necessarilymakesthat cultureavailable o acquisi-tion, to generaldissemination.But,

alongthe

way,on his journey o the metropolis, he evoluewill en-counterin racial differencean insuperableobstacleto assimilation: L'Antillais uiva en Franceafin dese persuaderde sa blancheury trouve son veritablevisage" (The Antilleanwho goes to France to con-vince himself of his whiteness indsthere insteadhistrue face; PiV, 145n). The blackman finds himselfdoubly bound by the contradictory njunctionofwhite culture:you must be likeme, you can't be likeme. This paradoxcan be formulatedas the internal-ly necessarycontradictionof a certainstructureofidentity,as DavidLloydshows:"Theprocessof as-similation . . requires hatwhich defines the differ-ence between the elements to remain over as a

residue."18n order for white cultureto remain it-self, it must be differentiated rom the black. Shortof undoing the superiorityand integrityof whiteculture,the black man thereforecannot,by defini-tion, figurativelywhiten. The residue of initialdif-ferentiation blackness mustremain.

What emerges starklyfrom this paradoxis thenecessaryassociationbetweenqualitative ndquan-titative comparison,similitudo nd comparatio. hebounding of particulardomainsaccording o simi-

larity theblack,the white) is converteddirectly o astandardof comparisonwhichdisposesobjectshier-archically(the white as standard); f the realm ofsimilitude s breached,the standardof comparisonfounders. This production of residual difference

maybe characteristic f all structuresof identity,asLloydclaims,but it seems to me peculiarlypervert-ed in the colonial context, because the culture ofcolonialismclaimsuniversality n the groundsof an

explicitly comparativeevaluation.Such an englob-ing standardcannot on the one hand be identifiedwith particularpeople that is, revert romconceptor tropeof whiteness to actual whitepeople with-out weakeningits generalizing orce, but on theother hand it cannot extend to those it excludeswithoutlosing its authority o differentiate.The as-similatedblack man or evolue s caughtbetween his

acceptanceof whiteness as a transcendentuniversal

qualityand his encounterwith whiteness as simpleand brute skinpigmentation.

Accordingto Fanon, what results for the colo-nized is an existencecaught n differential ompari-son. Fanon elaborates his concept by stating his"first truth":

Les negressont comparaison.Premiereverite. Us sont

comparaison, c'est-a-dire qu'a tout moment ils se

preoccupent d} uto-valorisationet d'ideal du moi.

Chaque ois qu'ilsse trouventen contactavec un autre,il est questionde valeur,de merite. Les Antillaisn'ont



278 WORLD LITERATURE TODAY

pas de valeurpropres, ls sont toujourstributariesde

rapparition e l'Autre. PiV,191)

Negroesarecomparison.First truth.They arecompar-ison, that is, at every moment they are preoccupiedwith auto alorization nd with theEgo ideal. Whenever

they arein contact with another, here is concernwithvalue,merit. Antilleanshaveno propervalue;they are

always ributarieso the apparition f the Other.

The stark assertion "Negroes are comparison" by it-

self unsettles both the tropic (similitudo)and evalua-tive {comparand)grounds of comparison in a move

that seems to me characteristic in various ways ofthe entire text of Peau noire, masquesblancs.19Noth-

ing in the sentence'sstructureor its contextdirectsus withany certainty owarda metaphorical r a lit-eralreading.This undecidabilitys crucial n that it

participatesn the erosionof the differencebetween

figurative omparisonand evaluative omparison. sthecopulaof the verb to bebindingNegroes ndcom-

parison metaphorical quivalence:he Negroesare"like"comparison?What might it mean to be like

comparison that is to say, like likeness or like

likening?The sentence oses nothingof its vertigo fwe read the copula as a statement of identity,forhow can we think our way around a personbeingidentical o the processof identification tselfratherthan to somethingelse, anego ideal,for instance.

What could it meanto becomparison?The mat-ter is complicated by the plural subject, "Ne-

groes,"20or while we mightat the limit imagineanindividual aught n the processof comparison,howdo we conceivea collectivityall at once andtogetherin identitywith comparison?The pluralizationof

the subjectof comparisons crucialhere, since thethrustof thiswholepassage s to reviseAdlerianegopsychologybased on the individual o what Fanoninsists in the Martinicancase is fundamentallyan

inferiority omplexrootedin the social neurosisre-

sulting from colonialism'sdestroying any "propervalue" for the Antillean.As Fanon puts it: "La so-ciete antillaiseest une societenerveuse,une societe

'comparaison'.Done nous sommesrenvoyesde l'in-dividua la structure ociale"(Antilleansocietyis aneuroticsociety,a societyof comparison.Hence weare sent back from the individual o the socialstruc-

ture; PN, 192). Justas colonialideologydefinesanunlimited field for comparability,o too its effectsexceed individualbeings and come to shapewhole

socioculturalcomplexes.The consequent disjunc-tions are nternal o theprocessof comparisontself.

In orderto distinguishAntillean social neurosisfrom Adlerian ndividualneurosis,Fanon producesa schema orthe comparisonhe hasin mind:

LeMartiniquaisesecompare asauBlanc, onsiderecomme e pere, e chef, Dieu,maisse compare sonsemblableous e patronageu Blanc.Unecomparai-sonadleriennee schematisee la maniereuivante:

"Moiplusgrand ue 'Autre."

Lacomparaisonntillaise,arcontre,epresenteinsi:

Blanc

Moidifferente l'Autre

(PN, 194)

The Martinicanoesnotcompareimself otheWhiteman,considereds father,eader,God,butcompareshimself o his similarsotherMartinicans]nder heWhiteman'spatronage. n Adlerianomparisonanbe schematizednthefollowingmanner:

"Ego reaterhan he Other"

The Antilleanomparison,n contrast, resentstselfthus:

White

Egodifferentromhe Other

As Lloyd elaborates, his revisedAdleriancompari-

son places one term above, "self-identical,the

metaphorof metaphoricaldentity:white."This ele-vation of the white man to "the universally epre-sentative man," however, produces a relation

amongthe blacks of "puredifference,""a suspen-sion in perpetualcomparison."21s Lloyd's choiceof words makes clear, the element which Fanonadds to the Adleriancomparison,"White,"func-tions at once andindistinguishably s metaphor, n-

vokingthe similarityof similitudond as a universal

standard, ettingthe norm of comparatio.f the dis-tinction betweenthese modes of comparison ueled

Shakespeare's onceit in sonnet 18, the collapseofthat distinctionherecharacterizes particularmodeof colonial comparison.Adleriancomparisonde-

scribes he overcompensationf an individual'seel-ingsof inferiorityhroughdirect access(viacompar-ison) to a "governing iction"or model. Since theAntilleancannotenter nto comparisondirectlywiththe white standard,he can only measurehimselfbyit in comparisonwith otherslikehim, otherblacks.

Similaritysuch as it emergeshere is construedasdifference from difference. The Martinican can

comparehimself to the white only with respecttohis differencefrom the differencesof others likehimself.Moreover, he termsunderthe bar arenec-

essarilyplural,but the comparisonn whichtheyen-

gage alienatesand differentiates ne fromthe other

indefinitely.The equivalencesbetweenMartinicansindeed cannot ever unify so long as they are fixed

under the bar of difference.Antilleancomparisonproduces, strictly speaking,incommensurableub-

jects subjectswho, despite their total imbricationin a processof comparison,can neverbe fullymea-sured by it and ratherthan fixing them into au-tonomousrealms, hatincommensurabilityaunchestheminstead nto a differentiallux.

A similarity onstitutedas difference romdiffer-ence can nevercoalesce into a standardand there-



MELAS 279

foreproducea measurementby comparison. n thislies its claim to incommensurability. ifferencehereis not the radicalseparationof singularentitiesbutthe differential ffect of an impossible dentification.There is no positionfor the comparatist utside,be-

yond the objectsunder comparison rom which togazedownin wonderment; n the contrary,he An-tillean comparatist peaksfrom within, or even inthe guise of, the comparison.In its very extremity,the versionof incommensurabilitye can discern nFanon'sanalysisof Antilleancomparisonpermitsusto graspwith some precisionwhatequivalenceshatdo not unifymightbe and what sorts of forms an

engaged or even imbricated comparatismmighttake.

While the paradoxof colonial racism providesone mode of conceivingof equivalenceshat do not

unify, the extension of such equivalencesto the

practiceof comparingcultures or literatureswould

requirea full elaboration.As a firststep in this di-rection, one might note that the Martinicanpoet,novelist,and theoristEdouardGlissant'senigmaticdirectivewhich hoversover this essayas an epigraph("the multiplepoetics of the world present them-selves to those alone who attemptto gathertheminto equivalencesthat do not unify") suggests atransvaluation f the kind of colonial comparisonFanon outlines.If we can see in Fanon the West's

englobingcomparisonoverreachingtself and col-

lapsingonto its colonizedsubjects, hen Glissant, ouse one of his words, "relays" he momentum ofthis collapseto its logicalconclusion,"l'eparsnfinide la Relation" the infinitedispersalof Relation).22If the colonialcomparison ips measure nto incom-

mensurability y subsumingall similaritynto com-paratio's tandard,conjuringa world that would beallapples,thenperhapswe might imagine he worldof "Relation"Glissantprojectsas one in which thebalancetips over into similitudo.n this dispositionof equivalences,a transversal equenceof similari-ties and conjunctionsproliferateswithout ever uni-

fying nto a standard; omparisonhere cannotmea-sure because it gathers equivalencesthat do not

unify.Insteadof the panoramaof multiple,discrete,and autonomoussystems Lyotardenvisages,Glis-sant's "epars nfini de la Relation"presentsthe ex-tensionof one, internallymultiplying, ncommensu-rablecode.

CornellUniversity

1EdouardGlissant,Le discoursntillais,Paris,Seuil, 1981, p.466. My rather literal translation.Michael Dash's translationreadsas follows:"... the proliferationf visionsof the world smeantonly for those who tryto make senseof themin termsofsimilaritieshat are not to be standardized."aribbean iscourse,Charlottesville,niversityPressofVirginia,1989,p. 254. Dash's

emphasis.2The applicationo literature f the comparativemethod n its

scientific guise is associated with, for instance, Ferdinand

Brunetiere nd HutchesonMacaulayPosnett. For a summary fthis view at the turn of the century,see CharlesMills Gayley,"What s Comparative iterature?" tlanticMonthly, 2 (1903),pp. 56-68; reprinted n Comparativeiterature,heEarlyYears:An Anthology f Essays, ds. HansJoachimSchulzandPhillipH.Rhein, ChapelHill, Universityof North CarolinaPress, 1973,pp. 85-108.3Anna Balakian'spresentationor the panel at the MLA atwhich thispaperwas deliveredwas a spiritedappeal orgeneral-izingandunifying omparisonn view of whatshe sees as the di-visive and separatistemphasison culturaldifference(see thisissue of WLT,pp. 263-67). The first questionerattempted omakeof mypresentationhe opposingview.I deflected he ques-tion then, partlybecauseI have neither the inclinationnor thesex to engagein the Oedipalagons of institutional enerationsandpartlybecause,generationallyt least,this isn'tmy fightinthe firstplace. As I attemptto outlinehere, where a previousgenerationset the disciplinarydebate between generalistsand

particularists, osmopolitanists nd provincialists,he questionnow seems to center not on what the ends of comparison ughtto be but on whether omparisons a viableoperation t all.

4In the late fifties hese twomodesof comparisonwererough-ly coincidentwithpositions n the debate on comparativeitera-ture held respectively y the French andAmerican chools. See

ReneWellek,"The Crisis n Comparative iterature,"n Proceed-ingsoftheACLA I,vol. 1, 1959,pp. 149-59.

5AdrianMarino,Comparatismet theorie e la litterature,aris,PUF, 1988,p. 243;mytranslation.

6Amongrecentappeals orreconception f the discipline, ee

for instanceEdwardSaid, who, in Culture ndImperialismNewYork,Knopf,1993, pp. 43-61), explores he development f the

disciplineof comparativeiterature gainst he backgroundf theconcurrent onsolidationof imperialism nd suggests replacingthe exclusiveand idealizingpracticeof comparisonwith a modeof "contrapuntal"eading.For a provocativeheoretical labora-tion of the challenges mergentiteratures oseto the monumen-

talizingfunctionof comparativeiterature, ee Wlad Godzich,"EmergentLiterature ndComparative iterature,"n TheCom-

parativePerspectiven Literature,ds. ClaytonKoelb and SusanNoakes, Ithaca,N.Y., CornellUniversityPress, 1988,pp. 18-36.For a multifaceted onsideration f the disciplinerom a feminist

perspective, ee Borderwork:eministEngagementsithCompara-tive Literature,d. MargaretHigonnet, Ithaca, N.Y., CornellUniversityPress,1994. The latestReporton Standards eleased

by theAmericanComparative iteratureAssociationuggests e-formsroughlyalongthe lines towardwhich these and other crit-icspoint.

7SusanBassnett,n herComparativeiterature: Criticalntro-duction Oxford,Blackwell,1993), makes an interestingargu-ment for the link between the concurrentdevelopmentsof na-tionalismin the competition among nations and the rise of

comparativeiterature. t is, according o her, preciselybecause

comparativeiterature id not fulfill he functionof consolidatinga national tradition n competitionwith other nations in theUnited States hat thiscountrybecame hevanguard f compara-tive literature'smost generalizingand idealizing aspect. She

points out that comparativeiteratureoutsideEuropeis often

veryexplicitlyramedas thepropermethod orbuildinga nation-al literature.

8Jean-Francois yotard,ThePostmodernondition: Reportn

Knowledge,rs. Geoff Benningtonand BrianMassumi,Minne-apolis,University f MinnesotaPress, 1984,p. 23.

9Ibid.,p. 26.

10Minute addressedby Lord Macauley to Lord Bentinck,GovernorGeneralof India,2 February 835;reprintedn Imperi-alism:TheDocumentary istory f Western ivilization,d. PhilipD. Curtin,New York,Walker,1971,p. 53.

11Bruce Robbins, "ComparativeCosmopolitanism,"SocialText,31/32 (1992), p. 56.

12For a discussionof thisdistinction, ee PaulRicoeur,La me-

taphoreive, Paris,Seuil, 1975,pp. 236-37.



280 WORLD LITERATURE TODAY

13See especially Michel Foucault, Les mots et les choses,Paris,Gallimard, 1966, preface, chapter 1 section on "Les quatressimilitudes," and chapter 3 section on "Pimagination de laressemblance."

14Deborah Durham and James Fernandez go so far as to arguethat understanding metaphor not only presumes a shared culture

but constitutes it: "[The creation of metaphor is] ... a jointrecognition of these shared understandings that is, culture in afundamental sense." "Tropical Dominions: The FigurativeStruggle over Domains of Belonging and Apartness in Africa," in

Beyond Metaphor:The Theoryof Tropes n Anthropology, d. JamesFernandez,Stanford,Ca., StanfordUniversityPress, 1991, p.196.

15Jean-Francois Lyotard, The Differend:Phrases in Dispute, tr.

GeorgesVan Den Abbeele,Minneapolis,University f Minneso-taPress,1988,p. 128.

16FrantzFanon,Peaunoire,masqueslancs, reface&postfaceby FrancisJeanson,Paris,Seuil, 1952, p. 100. Henceforth itedin the text as PN. Mytranslation.

171maintain he masculinepronoun hroughout, s Fanonre-serves this experienceof assimilation pecificallyo Martinicanmen. The questionof genderdifferencen structures f compari-son,colonialorotherwise, equires separate laboration.

18DavidLloyd,"RaceUnderRepresentation," xford iterary

Review, -2 (1991),p. 76. 1havebenefitteda greatdeal from hisessay'sdiscussionof Fanonalongwith other authors n an argu-ment for the conjunctionof the narrative f self-formation,hestructure f metaphor, nd the constitution f thejudging ubject

in the culturaldefinitionof race. My approachdiffersfrom

Lloyd's chiefly n thathe approacheshispassage n Fanonto il-luminate he metaphoricaltructure f assimilation,whereas

forgivethe chiasmus seek in it insight into the assimilatorystructure f comparison.

19Time preventsme fromelaboratinghis analysis ully.Peau

noire,masqueslancs eploysmultiplediscourseso diagnoseandcurethe problems evealedn racialassimilationit is a text thataims not only to interpretbut to change,and it aims to do thisboththroughanalysis ndthroughpoetictransformationf voiceand language).On one register his involves he thoroughgoingcritiqueof comparativevaluations f the black man (especiallyin psychology);on anotherregister t involvesan extraordinaryandanguished erformancef the metaphoricalanguagebothofracismand of negritude. n thissense,thetext seems tome to ex-

pressmost fullythe murderous onjunction f tropicand evalua-tion comparison.

20The only English ranslation knowunaccountablyurns he

plural"les negres"into the singular"the Negro." See Frantz

Fanon, BlackSkin, WhiteMasks,tr. CharlesLam Markmann,New York, Grove, 1967, p. 211. The translation s generallysound,but someof its idiosyncrasiesave resulted n interesting-ly inaccurate riticalappropriations, articularly ith respecttothe title of the much-commentedhapter enderedn Englishas

"The Fact of Blackness"rom the Frenchoriginal"L' xperiencevecue du noir."

21Lloyd,p. 84.

22Glissant,p. 153.

Versions of Incomensurability

Documents